<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 11.00.9600.17107"></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>In a message dated 6/2/2014 9:17:46 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
tstokely@att.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV class=yiv9047085640
style="BORDER-LEFT-WIDTH: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 16px; BORDER-RIGHT-WIDTH: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; BORDER-BOTTOM-WIDTH: 0px; OUTLINE-WIDTH: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 1em 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px">“The
Hoopa Valley Tribe is shocked and disappointed,” said Hoopa Valley Tribe
Chairwoman Danielle Vigil-Masten, “that the so-called ‘Klamath Basin Water
Recovery and Economic Restoration Act of 2014’ introduced by Senators:
Feinstein, Boxer, Merkley, and Wyden <STRONG>would effectively terminate water
and fishing rights of our tribe.</STRONG>”</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>Colleagues....</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I find the above statement puzzling as to how the Hoopa Tribe could
possibly come to this conclusion above. In fact, there is specific
language in the new bill that makes such impacts patently
impossible. Reading Sec. 3(g) of S. 2376 (The Klamath Basin Water Recovery
and Economic Restoration Act of 2014) it clearly says:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> "Sec. 3(g) TRIBAL RIGHS PROTECTED. -- Nothing in this Act
or the Settlements --</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> (1) affects the rights or any Indian tribe outside
the Klamath Basin; or</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> (2) amends, alters, or limits the authority of the
Indian tribes of the Klamath Basin to exercise any water right the Indian tribes
hold or may be determined to hold except <STRONG>as expressly provided in the
Agreements."</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>AND ALSO:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> "Sec. 5(h)(2) & (3) EFFECT OF SECTION. -- Nothing in
this section --</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> (2) affects the treaty fishing, hunting, trapping,
pasturing, or gathering right of any Indian tribe <STRONG>except to the extent
expressly provided in this Act or the Agreements</STRONG>; or</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> (3) affects any right, remedy, privilege,
immunity, power, or claim not <STRONG>specifically relinquished and released
under, or limited by, this Act or the Agreements."</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As the Hoopa Valley Tribe is not now, <U>and has never been</U>, a
Party-signatory to any of the Klamath Settlement Agreements, the savings clause
of Sec. 3(g) makes it clear in the statutory language itself that this Act would
<U>in no way whatsoever</U> impact any water rights the Hoopa Valley Tribe now
has or may in the future be determined to have. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And as the Tribal water Settlement provisions of the Act include ONLY the
"Party Tribes" who have actually signed the Settlement Agreements, and do not
include even mention of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, one can only conclude that
nothing in this Act would apply to the Hoopa Tribe in any way, nor limit either
water or fishing rights of the Hoopa Valley Tribe in any way. In fact just
the opposite -- as the two limiting disclaimers cited above make it clear.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>S. 2376 should be available shortly in full text from the Library of
Congress' Congressional Web site THOMAS, both by bill number and key word, at:
<A href="http://thomas.loc.gov/">http://thomas.loc.gov/</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=center>*****</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>While it is true that the Klamath Tribal water settlements,
which are strictly between the federal government and three other
Klamath Basin Tribes (theYurok, the Karuk and the Klamath Tribes of Oregon) who
<U>are</U> Parties to the Agreements, means that the Hoopa Valley Tribe
cannot later force the US to sue to overturn its own federal
settlement agreements with those other Tribes, <U>this is precise the case
already</U>. The US cannot be forced by one Tribe (for which it is
Trustee) to sue any other Tribe (for which it also serves as Trustee) -- this
would be a direct conflict of interest that would violate the federal Trustee
relationship, several federal laws and the Cannons of Ethics that lawyers must
abide by. Doing so would mean the federal government would be, in essence,
suing itself! </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And likewise, since the Bureau of Reclamation and other federal agencies
are Parties to the Agreements, nor can the Hoopa Tribe force the US (as
Trustee) to, once again, <U>sue itself</U> to overturn its own agreements
with its own federal agencies. Again, this would be a direct
conflict of interest that is not allowed under the current law.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But this is precisely the same situation the Hoopa Tribe would be in
whenever it tried to sue any federal agency of its own Trustee, i.e.,
the federal government. All it means is that in order to do so -- i.e., to
exercise any of its water or fishing rights against the feds in Federal
Court -- it would simply have to hire its own private attorney's rather
than be represented by the U.S. Attorney's Office or Solicitor General.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There are many examples of that happening in the past. A recent
example in the Klamath Basin is the case <EM>Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations, et al. vs. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation</EM> (2000)
(Civ. No. C00-1955 SBA), when we sued BOR over lack of a legal BiOp for the
Klamath Irrigation Project. The Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Yurok Tribe
both intervened in that case <U>against</U> the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to
defend their inherent water and fisheries rights -- the only difference between
that and any other lawsuit is that, since they were suing their own US
Trustee, they had to have their own independent legal counsel.
<EM>They could not force their Trustee to, in essence, sue itself.</EM>
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But that restriction remains in place whether or not there is (or is not) a
Klamath Settlement and whether or not the Klamath Act is ultimately signed into
law. The Klamath Act does not affect that legal limitation on what a Tribe
can ask its federal Trustee to do in any way.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Hence the Hoopa Valley Tribe's statement that the Klamath Act of 2014
"would effectively terminate water and fishing rights of our tribe" simply
cannot be true. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It may be an inconvenience to the Hoopa Tribe to have to hire its own
independent legal Counsel rather than have access to free legal
services of the US government, but that minor inconvenience in no way affects,
amends or negates whatever underlying legal water or fishing rights the Hoopa
Tribe might in fact have in Court. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE="10">======================================<BR>Glen H. Spain, Northwest
Regional Director<BR>Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
(PCFFA)<BR>PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370<BR>Office: (541)689-2000 Fax:
(541)689-2500<BR>Web Home Page: <A
href="http://www.pcffa.org/">www.pcffa.org</A><BR>Email:
fish1ifr@aol.com</FONT></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>